International labour standards and Queensland

Queensland’s legal labour disputes history does not exhibit the current trend seen in Canada and Switzerland (Gravel & Delpech, 2008) where cases citing International Labour Standards (ILS) are often successful (which is not presently the case in Queensland either). The two Queensland cases (Kuhler v. Inghams Enterprises P/L & Anor, 1997 and Bale v. Seltsam Pty Ltd, 1996) that have used ILSs were lost. Australia is a member state of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and a signatory of many ILSs. Yet, ILSs are not used in their legal capacity when compared to other international standards in other areas of law. It is important to recognize that ILSs are uniquely underutilized in labour law. Australian environmental, criminal, and industrial disputes consistently draw on international standards. Why not for the plight of workers? ILSs draw their power from supranational influence in that when a case cites an ILS the barrister or solicitor is going beyond legal precedence and into international peer pressure. An ILS can be appropriately used to highlight that Australian or Queensland legislation does not conform to a Convention or Recommendation. However, should the case deal with a breach of existing law based or modified by an ILS, citing the ILS is a good way to remind the court of its origin. It’s a new legal paradigm critically lacking in Queensland’s labour law practice. The following discusses the research methodology used in this paper. It is followed by a comparative discussion of results between the prevalence of ILSs and other international standards in Queensland case history. Finally, evidence showing the international trend of labour disputes using ILSs for victory is discussed.

Regulating for corporate human rights abuses : the emergence of corporate reporting on the ILO’s human rights standards within the global garment manufacturing and retail industry

Despite the ubiquitous nature of the discourse on human rights there is currently little research on the emergence of disclosure by multinational corporations on their human rights obligations or the regulatory dynamic that may lie behind this trend. In an attempt to begin to explore the extent to which, if any, the language of human rights has entered the discourse of corporate accountability, this paper investigates the adoption of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) human rights standards by major multinational garment retail companies that source products from developing countries, as disclosed through their reporting media. The paper has three objectives. Firstly, to empirically explore the extent to which a group of multinational garment retailers invoke the language of human rights when disclosing their corporate responsibilities. The paper reviews corporate reporting media including social responsibility codes of conduct, annual reports and stand-alone social responsibility reports released by 18 major global clothing and retail companies during a period from 1990 to 2007. We find that the number of companies adopting and disclosing on the ILO's workplace human rights standards has significantly increased since 1998 – the year in which the ILO's standards were endorsed and accepted by the global community (ILO, 1998). Secondly, drawing on a combination of Responsive Regulation theory and neo-institutional theory, we tentatively seek to understand the regulatory space that may have influenced these large corporations to adopt the language of human rights obligations. In particular, we study the role that International Governmental Organisation's (IGO) such as ILO may have played in these disclosures. Finally, we provide some critical reflections on the power and potential within the corporate adoption of the language of human rights.

Legal regulation of 'decent work' : evidence from two big industries in Bangladesh

In most developing countries, the overall quality of the livelihood of labourers, work place environment and implementation of labour rights do not progress at the same rate as their industrial development. To address this situation, the ILO has initiated the concept of 'decent work' to assist regulators articulate labour-related social policy goals. Against this backdrop, this article assesses the Bangladesh Labour Law 2006 by reference to the four social principles developed by the ILO for ensuring 'decent work'. It explains the impact of the absence of these principles in this Law on the labour administration in the ready-made garment and ship-breaking industries. It finds that an appropriate legislative framework needs to be based on the principles of 'decent work' to establish a solid platform for a sound labour regulation in Bangladesh.

A story about being engaged in research : buzzing bees, small business and Australian unfair dismissal laws

Protection for employees from unfair dismissal (UFD) has been around in Australia under various guises for 30 years or so (Chapman, 2006). Labour standards, and particularly ILO Convention 158 (Convention Concerning Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer 1982), underpin the adoption of a particular form of federal statutory UFD regime which first appeared in the 1993 reforms to the Industrial Relations Act 1998 (Commonwealth). Its existence, however, has not been uncontroversial, and the meaning, operation, scope and remedies have attracted attention over time. In fact, the first reforms to the federal UFD regime were undertaken under the Keating Labor government three months after they were enacted (Chapman, ibid.). Further reforms were made by the incoming Howard Liberal-national coalition government through the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Commonwealth) (WRA), and arguably these reforms continued down the ‘contraction’ path (ibid.).

Development of a new regulatory model for occupational health and safety in the New South Wales coal industry: an issues paper for the New South Wales Department of Mineral Resources

This paper addresses the regulatory issues arising in developing a new regulatory model for the New South Wales Coal Industry. As such, it identifies the relevant literature on this subject, the options available for reform, and the experience of Australian and key international bodies responsible for the development of regulatory standards in this area. In particular it: Identifies the main shortcomings in the existing regulatory approach; Identifies the potential roles/main strengths and weaknesses of different types of standards (eg specification, performance, process and systems-based rules) and potential “best practice’ combinations of standards; Examines the appropriateness of the current regulatory regime whereby the general OHS legislation (including the general duty provisions) applies to mining in addition to the large body of regulation which is specific to mining; Identifies the importance of, and possible means of addressing, issues of worker participation within the coal mining industry; Draws on the literature on what motivates companies and individuals for the purpose of recommending key provisions for inclusion in new legislation to provide appropriate personal and organisational incentives; Draws on the literature on major hazards facilities to suggest the appropriate roles for OHS management systems and safety reports or comparable approaches (eg mine safety management plans); Draws on the United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America (USA) experience of coal mine safety and its regulation for comparative purposes, and for insights as to what sort of regulation most effectively reduces work related injury and disease in coal mining; Examines the relevant roles of International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions; Examines the extent to which different regulatory regimes would be appropriate to open cut and underground coal mining; and Examines options for reform. This paper is focussed specifically on the issues identified above.

Are we there yet? Advancing women in Canada and Australia: Similar goals, different policies

Differences in opportunities and outcomes in the workplace are inherent in a free and competitive market. However when differences between individuals and groups are identified as resulting from particular policies, behaviours or attitudes, any resulting inequality may be identified as unfair. Increasingly, unfair disparities in societies and their workplaces are regularly challenged. Many of the unfair disparities are recognised as caused through unfair discrimination (Anker 1997). When defining discrimination, the International Labour Organization Convention (ILO) No. 111 defines it as “any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction, or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation” (ILO, 1958). Yet, the argument for addressing this ideal of ‘equality of opportunity’ is complex. Ekmekci (2013) identifies the difficulties as the determination of whether any process should be based on equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. In addition, there is the difficulty of determining what exactly constitutes a process for addressing unfair disparity due to the haziness of what constitutes discrimination and controversy in the meaning as well as policy implications of equality (Tomei, 2003).